chpettit19

"The postponement" is an interesting situation right now. The Twins find themselves in a really tough spot (at least partly of their own making). They've been trying to let the young guys create a new core for at least 2 years (I think they were overly conservative in 2020 with Kirilloff). They've tried to hand Kirilloff, Larnach, Jeffers, Arraez, Miranda, Gordon, and Lewis starting jobs at some point over each of the last 2 years (I think we all assume Lewis was getting a shot in 2021). They've given Ryan, Ober, Winder, Jax, Duran, Alcala, and Moran shots to earn major league jobs. So far Arraez, Miranda, and Gordon are the only ones to show any sort of stable starter potential on offense. Ryan, Jax, and Duran are the only ones to show any sort of stable starter/back end bullpen potential on the mound. I don't think it's totally fair to suggest they've been postponing things to this point. They've tried to establish 6 starting position players around Buxton (I don't think they had any real plans for Gordon to turn into a real piece so I didn't count him). 1 of those guys established himself (Arraez). 1 did enough to earn himself a fulltime starting job to start this season (Miranda) so they moved the guy "blocking" him (Urshela). The other 4 guys have been a mix of flashes of success in between multiple injuries. I get the calls for letting the young guys go, but what reason do we have to trust Kirilloff, Larnach, Jeffers, or Lewis at this point? Kirilloff and Larnach have given the Twins every reason to sign former all stars as insurance at this point. The pitching is along the same lines. Duran, Ryan, and Jax have established themselves in their roles, I think. Ober will get another shot at the rotation, but doesn't deserve an unquestioned spot due to his injuries. Alcala has been up and down, but certainly deserves a shot somewhere in the pen. Moran will get his second shot this year, and if he sustains his end of the year success he's another bullpen piece. Winder needs to show he can stay healthy. SWR, Varland, etc. are going to get their chances to establish themselves this year, and hopefully they take advantage. The Twins have been trying to let young guys take jobs the last 2 years. Very few of them have been able to stay healthy and do it, though. I wouldn't be excited about the Twins 2023 chances if they traded Mahle (I'd actually extend him), Maeda, and Gray. I think the pitching side is setup perfectly to allow another guy or 2 to establish themselves in 2023 so they don't need to extend the aging Maeda or Gray. If Larnach or Kirilloff could be trusted at all I'd hate this Gallo signing. Instead I'm basically neutral on it. We know how they love to rotate guys in and out of the lineup and give guys rest and all that so I'm not worried about a healthy Larnach or Kirilloff getting ABs. They'll get their chances. And if they stay healthy and produce then Gallo becomes expendable via trade (if he's successful and it makes sense with the roster at the deadline) or release (if he sucks) or you thank him for his service at the end of the year (if he's successful, but the roster situation at the deadline means you don't trade him).

Why would they lose Kepler and Polanco for nothing come '24? They're both under team control through 2024 (2025 for Polanco).

An independent arbitrator found him worthy of a 194 game unpaid suspension. Including docking his salary for the first 50 games of 2023. That's not the court of public opinion. That's him doing everything he can to defend himself, and still being worthy of the largest suspension ever handed out to an active MLB player for sexual assault or domestic violence.

Gallo for 1/11 or Conforto for 2/36 is an interesting debate. Not sure I love either of those deals. The FA market is a blood bath this year.

It's not a double standard when you're comparing 2 completely separate fan bases. And, as mentioned above, this thread is about Bauer and the Twins, not Watson and the Browns. Let's just stick to Bauer and the Twins.

I came to say basically exactly what @Mark G just said. I'd hate to trade him cuz he's my favorite Twin to watch right now. But if you can get young, controllable pitching I'd do it. I will add that I don't think they can get that in a straight 1 for 1 trade, though.

Recent reports (as recently as earlier tonight) have the Dodgers ready to cut him loose and eat his money. It should probably say a lot that they have no desire to keep him. The Twins FO isn't exactly on the best of terms with the fan base right now, and picking up a guy with his reputation as a person and teammate doesn't sound like the way to get fans back on their side. I'll be pretty darn surprised if he gets a deal with any team. Ever. I'd bet his career is over. He's into his 30s now, has a terrible reputation from multiple organizations (even wasn't liked in college), openly admitted to using "sticky stuff" during his amazing 2020 season, and hasn't been on a major league mound in a year and a half, but continued to shoot off his mouth and poke MLB over social media. Can't imagine there's too many owners willing to take on that PR nightmare for a guy who's been more average to good than great over his career.

If they're fine using a roster spot on a lefty mashing, bad defender corner outfielder then Garlick is about as good as it gets. I really hope they're not willing to use a roster spot on that profile, though. If they were more willing to put Garlick down at the bottom of the order so he's not sitting in the heart of the order once the righty relievers start marching to the mound I'd be less upset about it. I don't know that I loved Myers as a real upgrade, but I don't like Garlick, or his profile, taking up a roster spot either. If they don't let him face righties then stick with Garlick. But I mean never. Like literally 0 PAs verse righties. But that's not the case so I hope they find a better option to use that 26th roster spot on. I wish I had any reasonable ideas on possibilities, though. I think our best hope is Larnach, Kirilloff, and Wallner all start hot, and are worthy of MLB roster spots. Then either Martin starts the year on fire in AAA or Lewis is back as soon as possible and Garlick is the guy sent packing. I think they're happy with Garlick, though. And it makes me sad.

I don't think the pipeline is anywhere near where it needs to be, for the record. I think they need to start developing frontline pitching, not just major league pitchers. I was simply saying that suggesting they developed Santana and Liriano is a bit of a stretch. Liriano debuted the year after they aquired him, and Santana debuted, obviously, the year they acquired him. I was just saying that using those 2 as an example of pipeline success really changes the definition of the pipeline. Which was part of the original post. I don't care how they acquire pitching either. I'm with you there. Just get some guys who can start game 1 of the World Series. I have high hopes for Prielipp, and have a bad feeling we're going to look poorly upon the Petty trade in a few years. Even if I don't think it was a bad trade to make.

Some very interesting numbers here, thanks for putting that together! I think, generally speaking, we want to start seeing some arms reach the majors in the first 2 or 3 years after they've been signed/drafted since that's typically what the top end guys are able to do. My feeling on the Twins development situation (hitting and pitching) is that they've been pretty good at developing MLB players, but not stars. At least not healthy ones. And that's really been their downfall that has them in this terrible spot. They have some guys (mostly hitters) who have the chance to be above average players (which is what you need to win a WS), but we've spent basically 3 years waiting for them to arrive/establish themselves. Prielipp arriving in 2024 would be huge. A couple of SWR, Varland, and Balazovic establishing themselves in 2023 would also be huge. This is the make or break year for me. I agree it's been unreasonable to suggest they should've had drafted and developed guys of their own established as stars by now, but we're deep enough in at this point that they need to have guys arrive and show they can be playoff quality pitchers. I think they've clearly upgraded the development system, but it's time to see some real top end talent establish itself, or it's time to start over. And I don't think they deserve the chance to start over so that means a new FO to me.

Santana was a Rule 5 pick (well technically the Twins acquired him in a trade of Rule 5 picks). The Twins didn't develop him anymore than they developed Ryan. Same with Liriano (acquired as an MLB ready arm in a trade). So if you're going to give the Twins credit for "developing" those 2 in particular, you have to at least agree with the premise that a pipeline can be built around trades for MLB ready arms.

The comments we each made right before the discussion on "over spending" for a short period of time was that there are realistic ways many other teams are spending money to lower the cost of a win. Why are you now changing the idea to all extra money they spend going to top end free agents? And why are you assuming that "in general" fans complaining about spending are only complaining about not signing high end free agents? I think you're underselling the knowledge of the average baseball/Twins fan. It was awfully close to a 50/50 split on this site on whether or not signing Correa to a huge deal was a smart move. And plenty of the people who didn't want him signed also want the Twins to spend more. It is entirely possible for many of us fans to be ok with them not signing $35 million AAV deals, but also want them to extend their payroll. Even an extra $20 million a year would be huge for them. A $160 million payroll is more than enough to have a mix of stars that you extend early, and young guys that are up and coming. The Cardinals can afford 2 superstars, and a HOF pitcher, for roughly $160 million payroll. The Twins have their biggest star locked up for $15 million/year. The extensions they're willing to sign guys to could be less "team friendly" if they have an extra $20 million. Was it $5 million a year more than the Twins were offering that Berrios wanted on an extension that he kept turning down? An extra $20 million could've meant you kept him. Not willing to sign expensive relievers cuz they cost $5 million more than you'd like to pay? An extra $20 million could help with that. Some people love(d) Rosario. An extra $20 million could've made that arbitration number less scary. Trevor May? CJ Cron? Schoop? Pressly? Rogers? Escobar? These are just the guys off the top of my head. They let these guys go (and for some it's turned out well) so they could bring in lesser players for a fewer million less per player. Instead of paying Shoemaker and Happ $10 million combined you could've spent $20 million on a significantly better pitcher, and still had $10 million left to waste on dumpster dives. An extra $20 million, spent well, is gigantic. Honestly, I don't care what your firm assess. I don't mean that in a rude way, but your firm is not assessing professional sports teams. The math is different. The expectations from consumers are different. Thus the point of my original post. Fans get mad, as well they should, when you tell them that they shouldn't expect a team owner to be willing to lose some money on a given season. Unless you're going to turn around and tell the owners they shouldn't be pocketing the extra profit they make above their projections. Cuz when the Twins don't spend to their $140 million budget this season, and the Pohlads make an extra $20 million, they aren't saving that money to spend next year. They're putting it in their bank account and telling Falvey he still only has $140 million to spend next year. Maybe that doesn't upset you, but you're in the very, very, very tiny minority on that.

If the Twins can't be significantly better for an extra $40 million (not all spent for top end free agents, but, as discussed, spending in smarter ways to keep $/WIN down) they should just contract the team. Their payroll would be in the 170-180 million range at that point. If they can't compete with a $170 million payroll they should seriously contract the team. That's embarrassing. Target Field can hold roughly 40,000 fans. Over 81 games that's a total of 3.24 million fans. The Twins drew just over 1.8 million fans last year. Adding less than 1 million more fans still wouldn't even be selling out the stadium. And if they actually make the playoffs, and, crazy to think about, win a freaking playoff game that's even more fans attending games at higher rates. And this is simply fan attendance info, which isn't where they really make money. Imagine what having a must see product would do during their negotiations for a new TV deal next year. Now they're behind the 8 ball a bit there due to lack of competition, but having more eyeballs on their games because they can actually draw casual fans to the TV, instead of just die hards hate watching, would at least increase their contract some. So 2 years at $170 million payroll will cost the Pohlads some money for those 2 years. No doubt. That was stipulated from the beginning here. But, assuming they aren't completely incompetent, it'd give them a significantly better chance of building a sustained contender, and thus draw more fans to the stadium, and on TV. Not to mention they could then do the typical "raise the prices cuz the team is good" thing and they'd get more money per fan. The Cardinals have drawn 3 million fans every year going back to 2004. The Twins drew 3 million+ the first 2 years of Target Field and have since seen attendance drop by over a million a season. You said they needed 941,000 to spend an extra $40 million. Isn't 941,000 less than 1,000,000? Fans are here, and fans will attend. Give them a reason to and quit crying poor. It's not an unreasonable ask.

I'm not presuming that at all. I can tell you with 100% certainty that members of baseball ops staffs on at least 3 major league teams agree with me on the plausibility of that strategy. The members of the business side won't green light it, though. So what I'm presuming is that the Pohlads, or similar owners (or maybe just the St Peters of the world who like their high paid jobs), have no reason to use that strategy because they're making money now. Why risk getting that extra spending wrong and just losing money when fans don't show up because you signed Josh Hamilton and he turned into a pumpkin immediately? It's a risk they have no incentive to take because they don't need to be successful on the field to make money. And if that's all they care about why would they take the risk when they can sit back, be mediocre to bad, and print money?

I was on the field for batting practice this last season and I'm amazed that he was higher than them. Good for him, though. Hope it leads to good things.

Correct. My whole point, though, was just that it's not as simple as saying "the contracts aren't that different because of NY taxes vs MN taxes." It's far more complicated than that.

Maybe I'm reading that article wrong, and understanding the information I've gotten wrong, but it's actually the opposite of your Florida example. A Marlin who plays 3 games in Minnesota won't get a credit for the taxes they had to pay to MN since Florida has no income tax. So had those 3 games been played in Florida, the player pays no taxes. Since they're played in MN the player pays no taxes to FL, but does pay taxes to MN, and gets no credit because he only paid tax on the money once. Thus he makes less than he would've if the system was based solely around the tax rate of his team's state. Edited: Well it's not the opposite, but it goes both ways. That's the better way to say it. But at the end of the day it's still not simply NY taxes vs MN taxes.

They also have the Atlanta option of locking up should be stars well before they're into arbitration even for significantly reduced costs. They could also "overspend" for a short period of time and actually get fans interested in their product so the stadium is more than 1/3 full and they can actually get a larger TV deal because there's more people watching their games. There's a lot of ways they can improve the product, and be able to spend better/more, without just throwing their hands up and saying "we can't spend like the Yankees and Dodgers so don't be mad with how we run things." They extended Polanco, Kepler, and Sano for a year or 2 beyond arbitration. That's not saving any sort of difference making money. Franco and Ramirez were extended for their entire useful years. So was Julio Rodriguez. So was Albies. And Acuna. And Riley. You can be as dumbfounded as you want that fans expect more out of their teams. That's completely fine with me. But there's plenty of us fans who have thought well beyond simply "they should throw hundreds of millions at payroll and ignore any revenue or profit numbers." We're not all just blindly upset they don't spend money. Many of us are plenty smart enough to see more options than simply "there's nothing we can do to keep stars because the Yankees exist."

I wish Dozier was still around in 2021 and 2022! He was a gamer.

I do not have high expectations for this lineup. I've been saying most of the winter that the cries for "more pitching! more pitching!" are too strong, and they have every bit as much a need for more offense. I have high hopes for Kirilloff, Larnach, Miranda, Lewis, etc. if they can all stay healthy, but at this point Miranda is the only one I trust to stay healthy and he'd be more of a 5/6 hole hitter in my lineup. At this point, in my opinion, the Twins need to be looking to acquire above average talent only. That's why I have no desire to have them trade for Mateo or sign any remaining free agents. They have a 40-man full of guys who could be league average players, but almost no stars. Stars win. Bring in stars or roll with what you have and see if any of the young guys can be stars. Even though I hate that that means they're slicing the payroll way down.

I don't even know what point you're trying to prove with this Royals example. That building internally through trades of veterans, the draft, and international signing is both good and bad? They won a WS doing it, but were also terrible for decades doing it. What's your point here? Listen, I understand that building winning teams is done around young, inexpensive players. I'm on this site all the time saying that. The Dodgers, Yankees, Astros, etc. all build their team this way. The difference between them and the Royals, Twins, and Guardians is that they actually keep their stars while continuing to promote young, inexpensive players. It's completely possible for me, and many other fans, to understand that young, cheap talent is a key for the Twins, and every team, and still be upset that these teams trade their stars and cut payroll while also not signing any big time free agents.

I'm with @nicksaviking on this one. What's the point of bringing in any of these no hit shortstops people are throwing around? I want nothing to do with Mateo, Andrus, Iglesias, etc. Bring in a real shortstop or quit wasting resources on them.

I believe that depends on the state. I filed taxes in 3 different states the last couple years and, unless my tax person is stealing my credits/just not filing correctly, I didn't get any credits for the other 2 states I filed in.

Just an FYI, but players pay taxes based on where they play each game. So he'll pay NY taxes for all his home games, and games against the Yankees, but the rest of his taxes are paid in the state/city where he plays road games. It's not a 1 for 1 look when comparing NY to MN.

I'd guess they were quite positive that the Twins weren't going above the 285 and once Cohen called Boras there was no talking to any other teams.